• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Fantastic WalMart experience

nevinsb

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
145
Location
NY
imported post

Just got back from grocery shopping at the Mukwonago Walmart (Which is the only grocery store open at 1:30AM). Went about the same as shopping there during the day, except this time I was greeted leaving the exit by a nice police officer who asked for my ID. I gave it to him, he called it in, said that most people get in trouble for entering businesses with policies against firearms which walmart does not, or from concealing them because my shirt was untucked and could possibly cover it, then sent me on my way. Well, the Waukesha County sheriff department must have been really bored, because as soon as I left the parking lot, I was pulled over by 4 marked and 2 unmarked police cars.

The story I got was that I was obviously "new" to carrying a firearm, since I am guessing was because he didn't know me on a first name basis, and his not so observant partner claimed that I entered my vehicle without encasing my firearm. Which wasn't the case, because they were obviously waiting for me to leave the parking lot. He could see that the holster was empty, but wanted to make sure that I didn't have any ammunition on my person, and the firearm was in the case and unloaded. On top of that, they wanted to make sure I had all of the ammunition out of the magazine and not in the same case as the firearm. When I told him it wasn't, he said the ammunition needed to be stored separate from the firearm. I asked for a statute number, and about 1/2 hour later, I was quoted 167.31, which as far as I can tell says nothing of the sort.

Then they decided the case wasn't far enough out of reach. I am driving an extended cab ranger, and I had the case behind the passenger side of the bench seat. I have to remove the seat belt in order to reach it there, but they told me it shouldn't be in the passenger compartment, then later decided that it should be behind the DRIVERS seat.:banghead:

Long story short, no citations, but it wasted about 1 hour of mine, and at least 6 other officers time.
 

GlockMeisterG21

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
637
Location
Pewaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

nevinsb wrote:
Just got back from grocery shopping at the Mukwonago Walmart (Which is the only grocery store open at 1:30AM). Went about the same as shopping there during the day, except this time I was greeted leaving the exit by a nice police officer who asked for my ID. I gave it to him, he called it in, said that most people get in trouble for entering businesses with policies against firearms which walmart does not, or from concealing them because my shirt was untucked and could possibly cover it, then sent me on my way. Well, the Waukesha County sheriff department must have been really bored, because as soon as I left the parking lot, I was pulled over by 4 marked and 2 unmarked police cars.

The story I got was that I was obviously "new" to carrying a firearm, since I am guessing was because he didn't know me on a first name basis, and his not so observant partner claimed that I entered my vehicle without encasing my firearm. Which wasn't the case, because they were obviously waiting for me to leave the parking lot. He could see that the holster was empty, but wanted to make sure that I didn't have any ammunition on my person, and the firearm was in the case and unloaded. On top of that, they wanted to make sure I had all of the ammunition out of the magazine and not in the same case as the firearm. When I told him it wasn't, he said the ammunition needed to be stored separate from the firearm. I asked for a statute number, and about 1/2 hour later, I was quoted 167.31, which as far as I can tell says nothing of the sort.

Then they decided the case wasn't far enough out of reach. I am driving an extended cab ranger, and I had the case behind the passenger side of the bench seat. I have to remove the seat belt in order to reach it there, but they told me it shouldn't be in the passenger compartment, then later decided that it should be behind the DRIVERS seat.:banghead:

Long story short, no citations, but it wasted about 1 hour of mine, and at least 6 other officers time.

Wow, just wow.

As for 167.31

(g) "Unloaded" means any of the following:

1. Having no shell or cartridge in the chamber of a firearm or in the magazine attached to a firearm.

2. In the case of a cap lock muzzle-loading firearm, having the cap removed.

3. In the case of a flint lock muzzle-loading firearm, having the flashpan cleaned of powder.


I draw attention to the word "attached" As long as the mag is out of the gun and the chamber is empty you're fine. I have my gun in the case it came with and the magwell is empty.


Total BS situation man. I'd have a word with some of the people in their dept. They clearly need more education.
 

nevinsb

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
145
Location
NY
imported post

Yeah, I plan on stopping down at the North Prairie sub station off of 59 tomorrow. Not being employed, I have plenty of spare time to waste.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

nevinsb wrote:
Yeah, I plan on stopping down at the North Prairie sub station off of 59 tomorrow. Not being employed, I have plenty of spare time to waste.

Those LEOs should have some splainin' to do.

They violated your rights.
 

pvtschultz

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
299
Location
West Allis, WI, ,
imported post

Yeah, I would find a good civil rights attorney because you were stopped for an unreasonable amount of time and for no reason. Below is the attorney representing a fellow OC'er in Federal Court in his suit against the cities of West Milwaukee and Clinton, WI.

Jesus' Attorney info:

John R. Monroe
Attorney at Law
9640 Coleman Road
Roswell, GA 30075
Telephone: (678) 362-7650
Facsimile: (770) 552-9318
john.monroe1@earthlink.net

Otherwise, go to the WI Bar home page to find an attorney if you can't find one through other channels.

http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Finding_a_Lawyer&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&Contentid=69616

ETA: You should have picked up a digital voice recorder while you were grocery shopping (if you can afford it given your employment status that is).
 

hugh jarmis

Centurion
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
844
Location
New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Good grief. People wonder why I can't stand police. THIS is what law enforcement does?

They already determined you were a law-abiding citizen (which you shouldn't have had to prove in the first place). This is not a police state!

Then they obviously need a new eyeglass prescription because you were unloaded and encased. I SURE HOPE this officer who can't see never gets called to testify against anyone in the future. His vision is CLEARLY deficient. He has no business as a police officer.

THEN they don't the the F'ing LAW!

And all of that took HOW MANY F'ING POLICE?

I'm glad these police departments that we constantly hear are so "pressed to the limit" with manpower issues have time to send SIX SQUADS to pull over someone they had already determined was not a criminal to try to nail you on the techincality of not properly encasing (which you were)

There is something totally wrong with that picture. And I expect FAR FAR more for my tax dollars.

Shame on the Waukesha county sherrifs department.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

Unless I mis-remember, it was the Waukesha County Sheriffs Department that hired my town cop that said that he would "Prone him out at gun point and cuff him. It's a high risk call." when asked a hypothetical about an armed homeowner on his own property.

Be careful out there.
 

gollbladder13

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
239
Location
No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

I'm sure citizen will be by shortly to give you a full list of rights violated (at least, I've seen him do it a few times, now!)

This stop sounds way overkill and zealous on the part of the cops. I've heard of cops his CCW states securing the permit holder's firearm and even stripping it until the stop is over, but this is way past that. Looks like they were trying to find ANYTHING they could hook you with, and the fact that they had to radio in to verify some laws shows they weren't even sure themselves what to do.

I'm glad that you made it out without any BS citations, but that hour you will not get back. As far as getting in touch with your attorney, I see no reason for that since you aren't trying to fight a ticket or anything, but a letter to the dept and a formal complaint is definately in order.
 

hugh jarmis

Centurion
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
844
Location
New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

I'm glad that you made it out without any BS citations, but that hour you will not get back. As far as getting in touch with your attorney, I see no reason for that since you aren't trying to fight a ticket or anything, but a letter to the dept and a formal complaint is definately in order.
I wouldn't be out spending money on an attorney. But every department has a process by which to file a complaint against officers/deputies.

Its free, Its your RIGHT, and to be honest, I think its your societal OBLIGATION to file a complaint against these officers.

It may go nowhere, we KNOW police have a pretty good method of "taking care of their own" but I know internal affairs divisions (and all the other monikers these departments are called by) DO have a legal obligation to investigate.

At the very LEAST it is then documented and scrutinized. At BEST the officers will get a reprimand by higher ups and this kind of thing WON'T happen in that department in the future.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Be sure to file an Open Records request to get all of the names of the Officers involved before filing your complaints. Make sure you file a complaint against each individual officer involved as well.
 

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

J.Gleason wrote:
Be sure to file an Open Records request to get all of the names of the Officers involved before filing your complaints. Make sure you file a complaint against each individual officer involved as well.

Just want to make sure this is re-read.

You were set up for the six car stop.
Rights violation is a crime.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

McX wrote:
I would submit to fingerprinting, a picture, and a weapons/carry class to move forward the right to open carry, and even pay a hefty fee, but I won't submit to heavy handed Police tactics, baiting us in, or claiming false statements to unnerve or fluster us.
I think you might stand alone on that one.
 

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
imported post

J.Gleason wrote:
Be sure to file an Open Records request to get all of the names of the Officers involved before filing your complaints. Make sure you file a complaint against each individual officer involved as well.
nevinsb:

I agree here with Gleason, file an open records request with the police department(s) and sheriff(s) departments. You should get the "call logs" that brought the police down on you to begin with.

Then go to the city and county clerks offices (probably different locations) and file complaints against each office involved.

Write a letter detailing this experience (in complaint format) and send itto the AG, letting him know that even AFTER his memo, LEO is still violating the law and DEMAND the AG's office investigate the ongoing civil rights violations that are happening to OC's like you and me.

The harder LEO tries to intimidate me into, the stronger my resolve shall become.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

Yes. Through a Freedom of Information Act request as specified in Wisc. Statute Chapter 19, General Duties of Public Officials, sub-section 19.31 - 19.39 and as explained in the Wisconsin Department of Justice Open Records Guide http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dls/2008-PRCO/2008_Pub_Rec_Outline.pdf 760 MB 90 pages.

Specifically,

The Request.
A. Requests do not have to be in writing. Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(h).
B. The requester generally does not have to identify himself or herself. Wis. Stat.
§ 19.35(1)(i). Caution: Certain substantive statutes, such as those concerning
student records and health records, may restrict record access to specified persons.
When records of that nature are the subject of a public records request, the custodian
should confirm before releasing the records that the requester is someone statutorily
authorized to obtain the requested records. See Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(i) for other
limited circumstances in which a requester may be required to show identification.
C. The requester does not need to state the purpose of the request. Wis. Stat.
§ 19.35(1)(h) and (i).
D. The request must be reasonably specific as to subject matter and length of time
involved.
Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(h). Schopper v. Gehring, 210 Wis. 2d 208, 212-13,
565 N.W.2d 187, 189-90 (Ct. App. 1997) (request for tape and transcript of three
hours of 911 calls on 60 channels is not reasonably specific).
1. The purpose of the time and subject matter limitations is to prevent
unreasonably burdening a records custodian by requiring the custodian to
spend excessive amounts of time and resources deciphering and responding
to a request. Schopper, 210 Wis. 2d at 213, 565 N.W.2d at 190; Gehl,
2007 WI App 238, ¶ 17, 306 Wis. 2d 247, ¶ 17, 742 N.W.2d 530, ¶ 17.
2. The public records law will not be interpreted to impose such a burden upon
a records custodian that normal functioning of the office would be severely
impaired. Schopper, 210 Wis. 2d at 213, 565 N.W.2d at 190.
3. A custodian should not have to guess at what records a requester desires.
Seifert, 2007 WI App 207, ¶ 42, 305 Wis. 2d 582, ¶ 42, 740 N.W.2d 177,
¶ 42.
4. A custodian may not deny a request solely because the custodian believes
that the request could be narrowed. Gehl, 2007 WI App 238, ¶ 20,
306 Wis. 2d 247, ¶ 20, 742 N.W.2d 530, ¶ 20.
- 12 -
5. The fact that a public records request may result in generation of a large
volume of records is not in itself a sufficient reason to deny a request as not
properly limited. Gehl, 2007 WI App 238, ¶ 23, 306 Wis. 2d 247, ¶ 23,
742 N.W.2d 530, ¶ 23.
a. At some point, an overly broad request becomes sufficiently
excessive to warrant rejection pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(h).
Gehl, 2007 WI App 238, ¶ 24, 306 Wis. 2d 247, ¶ 24,
742 N.W.2d 530, ¶ 24.
b. The public records law does not impose unlimited burdens on
authorities and custodians. Gehl, 2007 WI App 238, ¶ 23,
306 Wis. 2d 247, ¶ 23, 742 N.W.2d 530, ¶ 23 (request too
burdensome when it would have required production of voluminous
records relating to virtually all county zoning matters over a two-year
period, without regard to the parties involved or whether the matters
implicated requester’s interests in any way).
E. “Magic words” are not required.
1. A request which reasonably describes the information or record requested is
sufficient. Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(h).
2. A request, reasonably construed, triggers the statutory requirement to
respond. For example, a request made under the “Freedom of Information
Act” should be interpreted as being made under Wisconsin public records
law. See ECO, Inc. v. City of Elkhorn, 2002 WI App 302, ¶ 23,
259 Wis. 2d 276, ¶ 23, 655 N.W.2d 510, ¶ 23.
3. A request is sufficient if it is directed at an authority and reasonably
describes the records or information requested. Seifert, 2007 WI App 207,
¶ 39, 305 Wis. 2d 582, ¶ 39, 740 N.W.2d 177, ¶ 39 (request for records
created during investigation or relate to disposition of investigation not
construed to include billing records of attorneys involved in investigation).
F. “Continuing” requests are not contemplated by the public records law. “The
right of access applies only to records that exist at the time the request is made, and
the law contemplates custodial decisions being made with respect to a specific
request at the time the request is made.” 73 Op. Att’y Gen. 37, 44 (1984).

Ockham's razor is the principle that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." including legalistic entities.
 

gbu28

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
155
Location
Milwaukee, ,
imported post

McX wrote:
This is getting rediculous! I read more and more on the forum of the Police rousting the open carrier. Criminals don't relax, eat, and read, while carrying a firearm in public! they don't shop, though they may shop-lift. The Police and beauracrats should see this is their opportunity to regulate, and Tax ($$$$$$$). They should set standards, city by city, county by county, police dept. by police dept, whatever. They should offer us OpenCarriers a means of avoiding conflict. Some kind of card, like one gets when you go to a back stage event at a concert, and a lanyard to wear around our necks.  Then a means to qualify ourselves, some kind of training course, to meet their standards of acceptable responsible Open Carry. Fighting against us, rousting us, wasting tax payer time and money is not the answer. You would think that some Chief of Police somewhere would have thought of this by now. I would submit to fingerprinting, a picture, and a weapons/carry class to move forward the right to open carry, and even pay a hefty fee, but I won't submit to heavy handed Police tactics, baiting us in, or claiming false statements to unnerve or fluster us.


WOW. I hope you're being facetious about this.
 
Top